D&D General Curbing Guidance after all these years

[Li Shenron]

The only 5e spell that has ever bothered me, and was never addressed by WotC, Guidance is still the same potentially spammable spell in the game. As DM, what saved me from raging against it, is basically just the fact that most of the time I play with either beginners who haven't noticed how easy it is to abuse it, or with players who purposefully choose not to, because they know it's not fun. As a player I am in same league as the latter, and when playing a Cleric I purposefully avoid learning Guidance so that nobody can ask me to spam it.

In a game I am currently a player however, one of the player is indeed spamming it at every check. The DM doesn't seem to be bothered, and when I asked them why, they just told me they are increasing all DCs accordingly to take Guidance into account. Personally I think this consequence is an appalling proof that Guidance is very much bad game design. What is the point of an option which encourages a DM to silently negate it?

I thought about how to exert some control over Guidance already 12 years ago so that it would still be beneficial but not spammable (but then eventually I didn't have to enforce it much due to what I said about my players). For example, I generally thought that I would not allow it on checks representing efforts longer than Guidance duration (including Knowledge checks).

Another option I thought about was not allowing to cast Guidance after someone has already said what they want to do, but this could easily develop into nasty confrontations between players and DM trying to outsmart each other... I much prefer an honest up-front house rule.

Recently I thought of how some other spells and abilities have a limit on how many times the target can benefit from them. Perhaps "a creature can benefit from the effect of Guidance cast by a specific caster only once per X" might be a good balancing house rule, where X could be for example 1 hour or a short rest, depending on the DM's campaign needs. It can still allow plenty of bonuses without being it on every single check, and has an element of choice (are you sure you want to blow Guidance on this easy task and not save it for later?).

What other ideas have you used to prevent Guidance spamming and how did they work out in practice?

 

[Stormonu]

Another option would be that it can only benefit an individual so many times per short/long rest - either 1x/short rest or PB/long rest*? Of course, that would require recipients to track its usage.

* If PB/long rest, I'd also consider possibly having it scale like attack cantrips/bardic influence (+1d6 at 5th, +1d8 at 11th?, +1d10 at 18th?)

 

[Li Shenron]

Another option would be that it can only benefit an individual so many times per short/long rest - either 1x/short rest or PB/long rest*? Of course, that would require recipients to track its usage.

Yes, basically a generalization/widening of the "once per <time window>" idea into "X times per".

Other "switches" for this idea include limiting it by either the caster or the target.

Another possible addition could be to limit it by the ability (as in for example, you can benefit from one guidance/day on a check with each ability).

 

[humble minion]

Honestly, in the game i run, I just enforce components and durations when people are casting Guidance, and most of the problems resolve themselves. It has verbal and somatic components, so without sorcerer multiclassing or metamagic shenanigans you almost certainly can't cast it silently so it's not going to help much with Stealth checks (the duration doesn't help there either. ) Same with social skill checks of any kind - the people you're talking to are going to NOTICE if you duck off every minute to cast a spell on yourself and come back more personable and persuasive. NPCs know they live in a world with magic and aren't idiots, this sort of thing is going to cheese them off. Spending an afternoon researching in a library and need to make a History or Arcana check to see if you found what you need? Well, Guidance isn't going to help you there much either with its one minute duration, you;d need to spend something like 10% of your time casting (and all that chanting is going to annoy the librarians, prepare to be shushed a lot). And of course it's not going to help with most reactive checks like Perception or Insight (or Athletics/Acrobatic checks in combat), because you need to have cast it in advance of making the check (plus, in combat it eats an action which could probably be better used doing something else, and it's hampered by being touch range).

It has its uses. Investigation checks looking for clues or traps, Arcana checks to examine magic items and so on, Animal Handling, or Athletics checks to make a difficult climb or swim, Medicine checks (if you ever need to make one...). But it needs preparation, and it breaks both secrecy and any concentration you might be holding on other spells.

I suspect it's a different story in BG3 etc (I've never played) where none of this stuff is enforced too hard, but at my tabletop, I've never found it abused. It's still a very good cantrip, and my tome warlock made damn sure to pick it up from her Book of Shadows, but it's distinctly situational.

 

[Charlaquin]

I thought about how to exert some control over Guidance already 12 years ago so that it would still be beneficial but not spammable (but then eventually I didn't have to enforce it much due to what I said about my players). For example, I generally thought that I would not allow it on checks representing efforts longer than Guidance duration (including Knowledge checks).

I’m pretty sure this is at least RAI, and arguably RAW. I don’t know about knowledge checks taking more than a minute, but I definitely think anything that takes more than a minute should be eligible for Guidance.

 

[Sulicius]

The only 5e spell that has ever bothered me, and was never addressed by WotC, Guidance is still the same potentially spammable spell in the game. As DM, what saved me from raging against it, is basically just the fact that most of the time I play with either beginners who haven't noticed how easy it is to abuse it, or with players who purposefully choose not to, because they know it's not fun. As a player I am in same league as the latter, and when playing a Cleric I purposefully avoid learning Guidance so that nobody can ask me to spam it.

In a game I am currently a player however, one of the player is indeed spamming it at every check. The DM doesn't seem to be bothered, and when I asked them why, they just told me they are increasing all DCs accordingly to take Guidance into account. Personally I think this consequence is an appalling proof that Guidance is very much bad game design. What is the point of an option which encourages a DM to silently negate it?

I thought about how to exert some control over Guidance already 12 years ago so that it would still be beneficial but not spammable (but then eventually I didn't have to enforce it much due to what I said about my players). For example, I generally thought that I would not allow it on checks representing efforts longer than Guidance duration (including Knowledge checks).

Another option I thought about was not allowing to cast Guidance after someone has already said what they want to do, but this could easily develop into nasty confrontations between players and DM trying to outsmart each other... I much prefer an honest up-front house rule.

Recently I thought of how some other spells and abilities have a limit on how many times the target can benefit from them. Perhaps "a creature can benefit from the effect of Guidance cast by a specific caster only once per X" might be a good balancing house rule, where X could be for example 1 hour or a short rest, depending on the DM's campaign needs. It can still allow plenty of bonuses without being it on every single check, and has an element of choice (are you sure you want to blow Guidance on this easy task and not save it for later?).

What other ideas have you used to prevent Guidance spamming and how did they work out in practice?

I have the following limits on Guidance:

1. Can't be used on an action that takes longer than a minute, like searching for a safe place to rest, crafting an item, etc.
2. Can't be used during conversations.
3. Can't be used while stealthing
4. Must be used before the check is made

It took a while for my party to get used to it.

 

[aco175]

Is it more or less powerful with the new rules of advantage when you have proficiency and tools for a check. I'm thinking of open locks using thieves' tools and sleight of hand? Part of me thinks that some of these are now, why bother rolls so adding 1d4 is just more whatever.

 

[Koloth]

For skill checks involving NPCs, perhaps the NPC has a low level mage helper using Detect Magic to catch shenanigans like a PC using Guidance to gain an advantage. "Oh, I see you are cheating! The price just doubled!......"
Maybe that verbal component attracts a wandering monster. Or is perceived by the tavern maid as an unwelcome advance.
The somatic movements could be perceived as the caster "Going for a weapon." by the town guard with which the face character is trying to talk the party out of trouble.

 

[el-remmen]

I guess I am lucky that no one in my groups have ever spammed it. I have had to occasionally enforce the 1 minute limit and stopping people who seem to want to cast it as a Reaction but it has never been a regular problem at my table. In fact, in a group I am a player in, I’ve been trying to remind another player to cast it more.

 

[sevenbastard]

My house rule is clerics get 2 more 1st level spell slots, but don't get cantrips. That solves the guidance issue and my pet peeve of clerics casting attack cantrips (laser clerics).